Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Aditya Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 36 of 2024, dated 22.04.2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Rakkar, District Kangra, H.p. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1293 of 2024 titled Aditya Rana versus State of H.P. which was dismissed on 29.07.2024. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The statements of four witnesses have been recorded and the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 24.03.2025 and 25.03.2025. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. FIR No. 105 of 2023 dated 28.10.2023 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 22.04.2024. The petitioner saw the police and star
Bail cannot be granted based on discrepancies in witness statements once the trial has commenced; substantial change in circumstances is required for reconsideration.
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances, as established by judicial precedents.
Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; filing charge sheet does not qualify as such, nor does unproven trial delay. Courts must exercise restraint to uphold judicia....
Grant of bail under the NDPS Act requires meeting specific twin conditions, which were not satisfied, and mere delay in trial does not justify bail unless supported by substantial change in circumsta....
Successive NDPS bail applications require material change like trial progress and long incarceration; antecedents not bar if substantial sentence undergone and speedy trial violated. Bail granted des....
Possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not guarantee bail; each case must be assessed on its own facts considering societal implications.
A material change in circumstances is required for reconsideration of bail applications; otherwise, previous denials remain binding.
Successive bail applications require a material change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not meet the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
In NDPS cases with intermediate narcotic quantity, Section 37 rigours inapplicable; regular bail granted on parity with co-accused, trial delay, and prolonged detention, upholding bail as rule absent....
Bail for accused with prior offenses requires careful scrutiny; strong evidence existing against the petitioner precludes bail despite claimed trial delays.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
